Winston Churchill ’24 I did public address events in high school but am familiar with policy debate as a format. Trend on the slower side. Please add me to the chain at noah.detiveaux@gmail.com I am fine for all types of arguments but it is your job to win them.

Hi! I'm Rohan, a junior at Pine View School in Florida. I mainly judge extemp; any other event - treat me as a lay judge. I've competed in extemp for three years and have reached elimination rounds at Harvard, Florida Blue Key, Sunvite, Princeton, etc, most notably semifinaling at Harvard earlier this season. I currently coach for Extempify, in addition to writing and running the social media for Equality in Forensics' Red Folder.

In extemp, I will always flow your speech. Think of me as a cross-examiner: I will be looking for holes in your content, or places where I have questions about your argument. I look for a good substructure (expectation-verification, past-present-future, squo-change, etc) and strong sourcing on the topic. For example, a speech on human rights should have at least some sourcing from a human rights organization or think tank - not just "AP news". Make sure to have a strong intro with a good AGD and a comprehensive background that helps me realize why the question is actually important and relevant. Don't be afraid to be funny - humor always helps, as long as it is appropriate.

Delivery wise, try to have the whole package. That includes voice modulation, fluency, hand gestures, and anything else that contributes to your delivery.

No, you can't bribe me in order to get good ranks. I have more integrity than my Congress persona would suggest.

Howdy! My name is Henry (he/him) and I’m a congress and worlds debater (as well as an extemper) from Texas. I’m a fairly seasoned competitor in these events, but definitely not the most seasoned judge you’ve ever had, so this paradigm is more than anything an outline of what I think good debate looks like based on my experience as a debater.

My goal as a judge is to provide constructive criticism of where you can improve as a debater, but if you have feedback/questions for me, I’m more than happy to hear you out!

ROUND CONDUCT EXPECTATIONS:

• Make a conscious effort to make the round inclusive. You need to respect your peers' pronouns, name pronunciations, accommodations, etc. It's one thing to mess up and make the correction; it's very different to completely disregard someone's identity. This goes for everybody.

• [For congress mainly, but this applies to everyone]: Do better than actual congress. Don't be hostile or condescending--even all the "good" people are--because it ruins the round for everybody. Respect and decorum are the foundation of a good round in any event.

Discrimination/acting hateful towards your fellow competitors is unacceptable and non-negotiable. This is a losing gamble and I will drop you.

Now for the rambling...

CONGRESS

Don’t think of this as a “how to do congress for dummies” instruction manual; think of this as my views on what the best practices of a good congress round should be. How you choose to do congress is ultimately your call, so play to your strengths and have fun!

CONGRESS IN 11 WORDS

Change things. Break norms. Smash arguments. Innovate. Move the round forward!

CONGRESS IN 3 POINTS

I consider all three of these principles fairly deeply; I don't weigh presentation vs. argumentation "70/30" or anything like that.

• ARGUMENTATION: I will vote for debaters who do the most to advance the round and strengthen their side. Destroy your opponents’ highest ground, extend your side’s winning impacts, and hand me the clearest analysis possible. Don’t just tell me you’re winning, prove it.

• PRESENTATION: I will vote for debaters who bring the confidence, eloquence, and knowledge that make engaging speeches. Persuasive presentation is what makes congress a uniquely powerful type of debate, so try your best and get creative!

• ENGAGEMENT: Keep questioning, speaking, and engaging with the round. If you disappear from the debate just because you don’t like the bill or because the 3-hour round has gotten the best of you, you make me wonder how invested you really are [this isn’t great]. Keep fighting!

CONGRESS: THE SNYDER CUT

My philosophical “Congress is _______” statement:

Congress is debate presented in a way that is both easily understandable and compelling to ordinary people. If you’ve ever watched C-SPAN, you know that real-world legislators don’t speak with extreme speed or use unfamiliar terminology ("going down the flow", "solvency deficit", etc.); they debate complex legislation with big implications at a level their couch-potato constituents can understand and persuade people to take actions on problems they see.

Here’s a more extensive list of what I like to see in congress rounds:

• For early-round speakers (for sponsors this is fundamental): assume I know absolutely nothing about the bill at hand and give me a detailed rundown of what the bill would accomplish, who would implement it, and what the real-world impacts of its enactment would be. Why is this bill even necessary/completely atrocious?

• CITE THE LEGISLATION! This is a relatively simple action to take, but it makes you seem vastly more knowledgeable regarding the legislation you’re debating, and makes your words much more credible.

• For everyone except the sponsor, refute and interact with the arguments of the opposing side. More specifically, refute the STRONGEST arguments on the opposing side; don't just target the easiest or weakest arguments. This doesn't just have to look like simple rebuttals; I really like turns and offensive responses if that's your thing, but again, how you debate is up to you.

• Analyze the debate and draw new conclusions that keep the debate alive and relevant [crystalize and weigh if you're later in the round]. Using your limited speech time for rehash is a massive waste of your time, your competitors' time, and an educational opportunity for all of us. Rehash is not the same thing as offering a quick review of key clashes as context for analysis; rehash is repeating arguments that have already been made without adding any new analysis or implications to move the debate forward. Please, please, please use your speech to bring something new into the round!

• Be as persuasive as possible. The more invested and engaged in the debate you act, the more compelling a speaker you seem. I don't place much value on having a congress "persona"; I would rather you simply be as enthusiastic and authentic as you possibly can. Your speaking style and rhetorical choices offer a huge opportunity to distinguish yourself as a unique and effective speaker, but they also offer an opportunity to experiment with your approach to presentation. Being inventive, innovative, and creative in congress will take you far.

• Use evidence to substantiate your argument, not to make it. Your arguments should make logical sense without evidence, and what evidence you use should be contextualized and warranted into your broader arguments, rather than standing alone. [Also, make sure your evidence passes the smell test; if you're asking, "do I cite a news article from 1983?" or "is this Russian propaganda?", you should probably look elsewhere.]

PO Paradigm:

• A wise congress debater once said, "there are three type of PO: fast POs, charismatic POs, and bad POs". Being fast not only means you know how to keep precedence in a timely manner, it also means you know the rules of congress well enough to resolve rules questions and issues quickly. Being charismatic means you know how to lead the chamber in a respectful and engaging--but not intrusive--way, and know how to make the round fun in addition to being fair. Being bad means you don't know how to control a chamber or make no effort to preserve decorum or resolve challenges when the need arises. Trying your best is the bare minimum here.

• I am willing to grant POs more slack if no one is willing to run and you are forced to take on the challenge, but I still need to see a consistent effort to preserve decorum, keep precedence, and move the round along. Know what you're doing, or at least do a good job of acting like it.

• Automatic precedence charts can be useful, but you still need to know what's going on in the round without them. If you can't explain why someone's precedence is what it is because you're letting an opaque computer program do your job, that's on you.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

• Debate is a game, which makes it competitive by nature, but it's ultimately not that deep. The only expectations I have for you at the end of the day are to try your hardest, be open to learning, and be a respectful person.

Good luck and have fun!

Anushka Gupta (she/her)

I'm a student at Westwood High School with experience in policy debate, extemporaneous speaking, and congressional debate. I've been TOC, TFA, and ETOC qualled for DX/IX!

If there's an email chain, add me: agupt186@gmail.com

Extemporaneous Speaking

I value well-developed argumentation over delivery, quantifiable impacts are a good idea

Please make sure to bring me your paper slip before the round and signpost throughout your speech, please arrive to your room on a timely manner as well

I love creative speeches, adding funny jokes and unique points that are appropriate to the speech's context will be reflected through higher ranks and better speaker points

Congressional Debate

Good clashing with your opponents is necessary during round, coming up with unique yet relevant arguments in both cross as well as new speeches ensures that this isn't just a knockoff extemp round

Also, give me new substance within your speeches, while bouncing off of other affirmative or negative speeches adds strength to your analysis, I don't want to hear the same exact speech several times in cycles

Like in extemp, creative speeches and adding jokes or unique points that are appropriate will ensure a higher rank and better speaks, emotional appeal in Congressional Debate also makes me more likely to vote you up

Policy Debate

Tech > Truth - Structurally sound arguments that are impacted out throughout the debate will win my ballot, however, be sure this is a tangible impact that is thoroughly explained otherwise I will not buy it

don't run a k :)

Hey, a little introduction about me! My name is Pranav Kothur, I am currently a senior at Obra D. Tompkins High School in Katy. In my last four years as a high school competitor, my main event has been Extemp however I compete in Congress as well. My qualifications include being a TFA State qualifier in IX (4x), Congress (2x), NSDA Nationals Qualifier in IX (2x), Congress (1x). Just recently I finished 5th out of 124 competitors at the UT Austin Longhorn Classic in Domestic Extemp and broke to Semis at the TX TFA State Tournament in International Extemp.

What I look for in Congress:

Generally I consider myself to be a judge who prioritizes 50% content, 50% speaking. For content, I look for debaters who put together solid, round winning arguments that enhance your side of the debate. This means if you are a later round speaker, I expect to hear you bring ref and arguments to bolster your side and present a new, fresh perspective on how your side wins the round while also enhancing the existing arguments. Simply name dropping or mentioning another debater in your speech is not considered ref. Show me that you have been paying attention to the round and are invested in the arguments you present and the ref that you look to bring up in your speech.

If you decide to sponsor, I hope to see you establish a good foundation for this debate. From sponsors, I am looking for you to create a structure and framework for your side as well as the rest of the debate. With your speech, I should be able to not only understand the piece of the legislation being debated but also understand the affirmations primary motivations for bringing this legislation to debate today.

I have mixed opinions on POs. Unless you are super adept and super good at controlling the room i will rank you higher than a 3. However in my book an PO has not put in more work than actual competitors who have prepped and spent time getting ready. As such you dont ranker higher than a 3.

What I look for in Extemp:

As a career extemper, I have seen numerous extemp speeches over the years. My top priorities when analyzing any speech comes down to the following criteria:

1. Did you answer the question? (This is self-explanatory)

2. Did you engage me as a judge with compelling presentation and strong speaking? (I look at more than content especially at high level rounds where content is very strong)

3. Did you present nuance in your speech and bring various perspectives together? (This is important especially at the highest levels of this event)

If you accomplish all three of the above tasks, expect a strong ranking from my judging, however please still expect critiques from me on your presentation and content because there is always something to improve. (Yes, even if you are the top extemper in the country, I will have critiques to provide)

Hi everyone! I'm Rin Moore and I'm super excited to be your judge! Sorry for how long this paradigm is </3 but I want to ensure you get the best judging possible from me!

Email: rinmoore365@gmail.com; if for some reason you don't receive comments, have your coach email me as I keep comments and flows on a Google doc!

Pronouns: They/them, please just refer to me as judge though!

Experience: I attended Hendrickson High School and did S&D for all four years. My events I have experience in are Policy, Extemp, Congress, and Informative

Potential bias: I'm a queer, neurodivergent, Latina and super progressive! I do my absolute best to keep my bias out of judging, but of course being completely unbiased is impossible.

Congress:

This was my main event in high school and my favorite form of debate (yes, Congress is both a speech and debate event)!

I'm going to keep this pretty simple with what NOT to do. PLEASE do not use a laptop or a phone to give your speeches!! It is my main pet peeve in this event; I won't rank you down for it but I've noticed that laptops are often an impediment to being fully engaged (makes eye contact, hand gestures, etc. very difficult) so for the love of everything please use a paper flow or an Ipad if you really have to. Next, DO NOT stall the entire session to prep a speech. It wastes everyone's time and I will rank you down.

What I do like: I <3 LARPing. I need to see more of it in Congress, as it makes you more interesting to listen to! But more importantly, bring your own flair to this debate. I love seeing unique deliveries and personalities in this event because we really don't see it enough. Don't try copy someone else's style, it won't have the same effect and bringing your own energy will truly make you shine.

I will always rank quality over quantity. I'd rather watch two 10/10 speeches than three 5/10 speeches.

Extemp/Info/OO:

I love when competitors energy fills the room. Eye contact, projecting (but not yelling), and tone variety. This makes you appear so much different from everyone else. Make me feel like I'm part of the experience and not like I'm just watching a newscaster on TV.

You don't have to be groundbreakingly unique, but be as confident as possible and that will make your personality shine.

I LOVE good substructure.

Extemp - I need to see three distinct points with two different sources each. Follow the intro structure to a T unless you're able to break the mold in a way that I can understand and you can do EFFECTIVELY. Fluency is important but I'll rank perfect content over perfect fluency.

OO/Info - Again, have three distinct points. They obviously can have more connection than in extemp, but I don't want to see a lot of looping around and there should be new perspectives in each point. This is the only event where I think your material should be COMPLETELY memorized. Of course, I'll give some grace at the beginning of the year, but once we're into the thick of the season your speech should be memorized like THE BACK OF YOUR HAND. You should be able to give this speech in your sleep. I won't dock you for stumbling or forgetting a word, but you absolutely should not be forgetting whole sentences and sections.

Policy/PF/LD:

I don't know why anyone would have me judging this event, but you never know!

I only did Policy for one year during my freshman year, I didn't like doing it but I love that form of debate and really respect how yall keep up in this event! However, I cannot keep up, so please no spreading. I won't flow what I can't understand and you won't get quality judging. So please be clear so I can flow. Also, if yall are using an email chain or SpeechDrop, please add me, my email is at the top of the paradigm!

Going off that I don't have much experience here, I don't understand debate jargon that well. If you use it, explain what it is during your speeches, or better yet, don't use it at all! (I realize that this is nearly impossible in Policy, but do your best).

Tech>truth always!

Interp:

I have zero experience here, no idea what blocking even is, but I LOVE interp.Please give trigger warningsbefore you start. I know this is a controversial topic, but for very dark topics like school shootings or assault, a warning would be very appreciated so I'm not shocked. This will help you get the best judging from me so I can focus on your performance and not on the sudden surprise you've just shown me.

Make me feel something. Try not to trauma-dump because that takes me out of the experience; it's hard to tow the line between emotion and trauma-dumping sometimes, but I believe in you! Also, have good choreography. Interp is kind of like dance to me; try to have sharp and strong movements, not flaccid and weak ones unless that's part of the performance.

World Schools:

I also have no experience with this.

Make your claims clear. Warrant like there's no tomorrow; your ability to warrant will probably win you the round. Weigh against your opponent. Warrant here too! I'll vote on whichever side of least resistance is, like being able to communicate their points/impacts the clearest.

hi my name is sasha (clark 23' plano west 25') and i fw debate on the low

qualifications:

extemp toc champ 24' | asu champ 24' | toc 23'24'25' | tfa, glen, emory finals

however that means i've based my paradigm off of the people that i've debated with, and the people i've been privy to sharing this space with. i largely grab ideas and word for word sections of my paradigm from:

RYAN CHANG, NAVID SHEYBANI, DAVID HUSTON, ANGEL RIBO, SKANDA GOPIKANNAN, ESHAAN CHACHAD, VIVIAN HO, HOLDEN BUKOWSKY, ARI DAVIDSON, REGGIE CHAPMAN, NEAL WHITE, MAIMUNA ILYAS, ROSHAN SHIVNANER, DAVID & AVA CUI, PLAYBOI CARTI, AMRITA SHYAM, ESTHER "bearuh" JESS, SAHITH REDDY, ARRMAN? KAPOOR?

for email chain: sasha.morel.2007@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, but all arguments need a coherent warrant and impact. Read what you are comfortable going for! I'm better for some debates than others, but this is ultimately your round to learn and have fun. I consider myself flex, so I'm equally good for everything but not amazing.

TLDR

1. Be good people. Racism, homophobia, etc. will get you dropped. Be respectful before, during, and after the debate to the people around you (something you should do anyways) and don't cheat with evidence.

2. If you are clear, I can handle any speed. I will only judge based off of what I get down, so if you're unintelligible, that's on you. Above all, make sure your opponent is fine with it.

3. Not doing any work for you. Extend things yourself, explain your arguments to me, and read your rehighlights. Let me know if I should take a look at specific pieces of evidence, what layer I should think about first, what arguments I should reject for what reason, etc.

4. Disclose properly. Breaking new is fine, but everything else should be done at least 30 minutes before the round. I'm probably never voting on New Affs Bad.

PREF SHEET

1. K

2. Policy

3. Theory

4. T/Tricks

5. Phil (bro plz strike)

argument specifics (the numbers/letters DO NOT mean anything that's just for navigation)

note: this goes for both sides (e.g., kritik means k negs and -affs)

1. phil - hold my hand for anything that is past kant or any derivative of util. i am probably (surely) not the best judge for anything past these.

a) explain/warrant out the syllogism to me like i'm a parent

2. the kritik - love it. please make the alt/solvency mechanism clear, as well as cleanly extend them if you want me to vote on your for it. i will be pressured to vote against you on topicality (for planless affs) if you don't adequately respond to any form of it. just make sure the links are contextual to the topic or are specific, NOT anything randomly pulled out of a pat backfile and read on a teenager at 8 a.m.

a) 1ac quotes are great if they genuinely link. like this will make my morning/afternoon/night much better

b) dylan said it best: "[i] strongly dislike the trend of identity-based arguments that appropriate the language of antiblackness literature to make their argument"

c) make sure turns case is in the 2nr with your link o/v or something like that; i'll be tempted to not buy it regardless of how well it was extended because at that point why care?

3. policy - yeah that's great. i will vote on plan affs, da, cps, etc.

a) make a turns case argument in the 2nr and weigh accordingly

b) if your internal links are nonexistent/bad i will be pressured to vote neg on presumption

4. theory - sure if it's a genuine violation/abuse, just warrant it out

a) if it's frivolousANDun-/under-covered, i will vote for you but just know you ruined my day

5. tricks - strike me if you absolutely desire running this

6. topicality - a note: mygood friend and teammate angel ribohas an excellent paradigm on this.tl;dr, i'll buy it but "weigh, weigh, weigh".

STYLE:

As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

TOPICALITY

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

SPEAKS

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters.This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

25-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

20: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

other things

1. why do i even have to say this: any -ism or -phobia/form of violence or misgendering is an L20, i seriously don't care if it's the first card in your 1ar i'll submit the ballot and potentially talk to tab. please just don't be a bad person. if i genuinely missed something violent that happened in round, i'm sorry and i invite you to please talk to me after

2. if you have any questions post-round don't hesitate to ask me or email me @ the email above. no 3nr/-ars please, just a genuine space where i will give you extra criticism that wasn't in the rfd if you would like me to and i'm not busy. education is key

3. i'm not an expressive guy, ask my friends. you could get an L25 or W30 regardless of whether i look like i stepped in mud or a child on christmas morning. i will be flowing, and don't get caught off-guard if i start looking at the ceiling---my pen is still moving at the same speed/accuracy as your content.

4. please extend before you talk about something. make a bare-bones o/v at the VERY least (you won't love your speaks but you might love your win). if you yell at me at 8 in the morning about how one word in subpoint AA of Z of AB of so on and so forth was dropped without telling me WHAT the argument is, i will cry

EXTEMP - bold is TLDR

I don’t have any strong political affiliation, and I’m more than welcoming for political jokes (all in good spirit of course). I value good fluency, good rhetoric, and good tags. Extemp should be entertaining. Obviously, make sure your links are clear, and have good content and evidence.

Basically, all of your analysis should be linear, i.e a sets up b and b sets up c which is why my answer is correct. A lack of cohesive argumentation in extemp is the easiest way to get a really mid rank even if you're a good speaker.

for the love of god have all of your points stand alone, don't have point 1 explain point 2 and etc...

Anything over 7:20 will probably have you ranked down. 7 minutes is the limit and grace is to help you finish your last sentence or two. Please follow good structure, 100% of your extemp speeches should have 3 points.

Anyways please be yourself, as a competitor I can easily tell when you try use canned jokes that don’t fit.

If you steal jokes and I recognize that, you're actively violating the rules of extemp - that's a 6.

I prefer competitors memorize the majority of their speech, that’s how you impress me as a judge. the more stuff you have to reference in round makes me feel like your 30 minutes was used incorrectly. if you do use a card/notes please try and limit it to sources.

I'm a really slow typer, so i'm looking down a lot at my computer and stuff - just because im not looking directly at you doesn't mean i'm disinterested, and certainly doesn't mean i'm not listening.

if i can sense you're having fun, then i will too.

Extemp:

I'm a judge that values creativity, structure, and delivery in rounds. I appreciate speakers who can incorporate jokes or puns when appropriate, but I also look for authenticity and respectfulness. Don't make light of serious situations and don't use narratives just because they're "convenient" for your speech. The heart-breaking stories you tell in your AGD come from real people's lives. Treat them like they're real people. Most importantly, I want to hear what YOU have to say about the question. I get it, you're trying to tell me that Israel should remove troops from Syria or the EU needs to beef up sanctions towards some country. But are you telling me why it matters? You need to explain why we have to answer your chosen question - not just in the SOS, but throughout your entire speech. Who's being affected? How is their situation changing? What do you predict will happen going forward? What do you propose happens now?

Hi ya'll! My name is Tanmay Rai and I am a junior from Houston. I've made finals at TFA twice, and made outrounds at NIETOC, NSDA, Harvard, Florida Blue Key, and Yale.

Congress:

- if you go past the sponsor clash is not an option its a requirement - also weigh if you can

- do not rehash arguments, rhetoric, or repeat anything - I have watched and been enough rounds. If you are copying it I will know.

- I don't care about what type of structure you use so long as you have some form of organization in your speech

- signposting is good

- good speaking and rhetoric is a plus, but it will not get you far if your content is bad.

- please make strategic arguments.

- cards do not win rounds. Your warrants do. PLEASE warrant.

- I really like comparative analysis if you can do it go for it.

- padless delivery is cool - but if you can't do it don't do it. If you pull it off well then I'll reward you for it.

- POs will break if they are competent and won't if they aren't. I will always pref a speaker who debates rather than someone who does google sheets for 3 hours. Do not waste time but if you insert personality here and there its good - just strike a balance. That being said, you will get the lowest breaking rank if you are good (mostly)

TLDR: Do your job in the round at that point in the round, don't rehash, address the big issues of the round, warrant, and be compelling however it is best for you to do so.

Extemp:

- please follow the basics (substructure, general formatting)

- clean signposting

- please don't be unethical with your citations.

- I need clear warranting

- impacting and rhetoric is cool

TLDR: Check all the boxes + leave an impression.

Everything else:

- Debate kids: I can flow, I understand how arguments work - otherwise I am lay. Unless you want to speedrun losing the round, do not spread.

- Speech kids: I am one and am on a team of very good speech competitors. Clean arguments, points, compelling delivery, and good blocking. I know what to look for and what a good performance generally looks like.

If you need to reach out for any reason: tanmayraiusa@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Paul, a rising senior at Stratford High School. I mainly compete in Extemp, and have finaled at UIL State twice, quartered the UT Longhorn in USX, and quartered TFA State in IX. I also have some experience in Oratory.

Debate:

• Consider me a truth judge, as I will not look favorably on arguments that are not backed up properly. I like to see interesting takes on topics, but ones that can reasonably be backed up in reality.
• I can flow pretty fast. Take that how you will.
• I will USUALLY disclose if both sides want me to, but will ask for consent before doing so.

Oratory/Info:

For PA events other than Extemp, I generally tend to give equal weight to delivery and writing. I like a polished speech, but I want to see the humanity in it; I should be able to tell why you picked this topic over anything else you could have done.

In Oratory specifically, I need solutions. These solutions should be relevant to your topic and towards your audience. As far as I'm concerned, an Oratory without solutions is pointless.

Congress:

I have some experience in Congress, so I know what the event is supposed to look like, and what it is not. I absolutely abhor the toxic culture that seems to be prevalent which advances being rude and bullying people in order to show "dominance". I value unique arguments, and don't like seeing rehash. Again, please be nice, especially in questioning.

Extemp:

In Extemp, I definitely value analysis over delivery, although delivery is important and I will take that into account. I like to see structure, and your substructure across all three points should be the same (unified analysis) except in VERY rare circumstances (ie super complex court or econ topics).

I almost act as a cross examiner when watching speeches, trying to find weak areas and how you address them. I like to see logical arguments that flow nicely which I have a hard time poking holes in them. I'd actually advise trying this in prep: think about the questions a cross examiner could ask, and address them so that the logic is more sound.

Speaking of cross examination, be nice. I don't particularly like seeing the more "Congressy" style of cross. Although you should obviously strive to ask good questions, and I will reward you if you do, you should ask them politely; cross should look a lot more like an news interview of an expert than a cheap TV show's version of a courtroom.

As for AGDs, I don't value them that highly. What I mean by this is not to refrain from having them, but I would rather not see one than a bad one. They should be clearly linked to your topic, and look like something that is applicable to this speech, not just a device you pull out every time you get a question with the word Nigeria in it.

I do not like canned or inappropriate AGDs, and while I usually won't give it an automatic 6, I will definitely down you for it. In addition, AGDs stolen from NSDA finals are not something you should be using; everyone has seen those, and everyone will know you are fine with plagiarism. This doesn't go so much for ideas that are so widely used that they are in the "public domain" per se, but you should be able to come up with something about it that is unique to you; I don't like canned punchlines.

Interp:

Please don't let me be your Interp judge. I have absolutely no experience, and don't like the event. If that fails, I would like to see clear character transitions (in HI especially), energy that doesn't look too rehearsed, and vocal variety (ie don't just yell at me for ten minutes, have levels). Otherwise, consider me a lay judge.

In all events, DO NOT USE YOUR PHONE IN ROUND. I will drop you to the heaviest extent possible that I can in the event, as will most other judges.

i like spech and debate